WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is lifting its ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after generations of limits on their service, defense officials said Wednesday.

The changes, set to be announced Thursday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, will not happen overnight. The services must now develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.

Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes on condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement.

There long has been opposition to putting women in combat, based on questions of whether they have the necessary strength and stamina for certain jobs, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.

But as news of Panetta's expected order got out, members of Congress, including the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced their support.

"It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations," Levin said.

Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will be the top Republican on the Armed Services panel, said, however, that he does not believe this will be a broad opening of combat roles for women because there are practical barriers that have to be overcome in order to protect the safety and privacy of all members of the military.

Panetta's move comes in his final weeks as Pentagon chief and just days after President Barack Obama's inaugural speech in which he spoke passionately about equal rights for all. The new order expands the department's action of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. Panetta's decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.

Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and they often included top command and support staff.

The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to battalions. So while a woman couldn't be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.

And these conflicts, where battlefield lines are blurred and insurgents can lurk around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat.

Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs — including some infantry and commando positions.

In the Navy, however, women have begun moving into the submarine force, with several officers already beginning to serve.

Jon Soltz, who served two Army tours in Iraq and is the chairman of the veterans group VoteVets.org, said it may be difficult for the military services to carve out exceptions to the new rule. And while he acknowledged that not all women are interested in pursuing some of the gritty combat jobs, "some of them are, and when you're looking for the best of the best you cast a wide net. There are women who can meet these standards, and they have a right to compete."

Two lawsuits were filed last year challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, adding pressure on officials to overturn the policy. And the military services have been studying the issue and surveying their forces to determine how it may affect performance and morale.

The Joint Chiefs have been meeting regularly on the matter and they unanimously agreed to send the recommendation to Panetta earlier this month.

A senior military official familiar with the discussions said the chiefs concluded this was an opportunity to maximize women's service in the military. The official said the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process:

_ That they were obligated to maintain America's effective fighting force.

_ That they would set up a process that would give all service members, men and women alike, the best chance to succeed.

_That they would preserve military readiness.

Part of the process, the official said, would allow time to get female service members in leadership and officer positions in some of the more difficult job classifications in order to help pave the way for female enlisted troops.

"Not every woman makes a good soldier, but not every man makes a good soldier. So women will compete," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif. "We're not asking that standards be lowered. We're saying that if they can be effective and they can be a good soldier or a good Marine in that particular operation, then give them a shot."

Women comprise about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars. Of the more than 6,600 who have been killed, 152 have been women.

The senior military official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.

If the draft were ever reinstated, changing the rules would be a difficult proposition. The Supreme Court has ruled that because the Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat, American women aren't required to register upon turning 18 as all males are.

If combat jobs open to women, Congress would have to decide what to do about that law.

I'm in support of this, but only if it's done carefully. This could be one fo the biggest breaking of boundries and barriers when it comes to gender, but it just can't happen over night and like nothing's changed. Let's hope the big wigs in DC can handle this right.

The Australian Army is going through a similar process. Except that it's been recommended here (and accepted by the government from memory) that a form of affirmative action is to take place (which is just a plain bad idea in a military environment, but go figure). The sky won't fall down on us or the US military if it's handled correctly, but unfortunately I think it will be a long time until women are serving trouble free in frontline units.

I see no reason why they are less capable for the jobs, so logically I'm all for it, but part of me still feels bad having women in dangerous situations, again not because they're less capable, or becauee they're fragile and need to be coddled, just from years of "keep women safe mentality". Not enough to make me say this is wrong, but I'd feel worse when hearing that a woman soldier died than a male...

_________________

Naamath wrote:

No comments, no words need it, no BM, no compromise, only grains in her face.

I think by all rights women deserve positions on the front lines , but I hope they remain off the selectice service, as alluded to at the end of the article. My apprehensiveness to them being added is due in part to the mentality mentioned by lord_ghenhis, and turning the opportunity created by lifting the ban into a conscription required by law (at least if the exemption law for women changes abruptly) is a backwards step.

My understanding is that because the USA's wars don't have defined front lines, female soldiers are already getting in firefights, so this step is hard to argue against. Since women are going to get shot at anyway, they may as well get the equipment and training for combat roles.

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pmPosts: 6928Location: The Land Down Under (no, not THAT one)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:35 am

Anything that further promotes equality of any kind gets my support.

_________________

Earthcubed wrote:

Xlxlx, I'm very proud of you for standing up to the cisgender patriarchy and embracing who you really are. No matter what others may say always remember: you are beautiful and you are a goddamn empanada.

My understanding is that because the USA's wars don't have defined front lines, female soldiers are already getting in firefights, so this step is hard to argue against. Since women are going to get shot at anyway, they may as well get the equipment and training for combat roles.

I'm in the us army and this is very true. Front lines aren't a concept for the US' majority of wars anymore. Damage is dealt swiftly and then there's a presence for years. By that course of action, women have been involved just as much as the majority of males (I'm singling out SF type stuff and very specific operations). There are more males on FOBs than women, but that's just because there are more males in general.

Those are the types of jobs restricted to males. What you don't see is something like military police, which is open to women. In a time of war, MPs take the role of infantry (a job restricted to males) as well as their own job anyway.

I don't agree with the affirmative action part. The military is downgrading, anyway, 'cause of budget and restructuring issues. The focus is different these days so a move like this within the military isn't such a big deal unless you're a 20-year active airborne infantry ranger 'roided SOB.

_________________

gomorro wrote:

Yesterday was the birthday of school pal and I met the chick of my sigh (I've talked about here before, the she-wolf I use to be inlove with)... Maaan she was using a mini-skirt too damn insane... Dude you could saw her entire soul every time she sit...

As a former grunt in the service, I'll have some better analysis of this very interesting news topic as more of the finer details pour in but here are my initial thoughts: I have to say that this has much to do with the way wars are fought today. With military technology as high as it is now, one could make the case that ground units are little more than "mop up" crews in these times. I think most would agree that if this was World War II, Korea or Vietnam, most of us would strongly disapprove-not that women haven't been forced to have had to pick up their weapons when a combat situation suddenly arose in past conflicts in the past anyway- but now I think is the time to open up more to letting females qualify for those positions. I am curious to know how quickly the dynamics and attitudes about women overall will adjust within the close infantry ranks because let me tell ya; in those units, the caged lion mentality towards the fairer sex could best be described as sexist at best and misogynistic at worst. But overall, I've come to the conclusion that if women can serve as big city police officers as they do now then the evolution for combat roles is there.

But right now, my feelings on this in general are mixed. The standards should remain very high. If a female is going to serve in the infantry, she'd better be able to carry a fellow 220 lbs soldier to a medvac and be able to hump a 240G machine gun or the base plate or a 60 mm tube up that hill.

But right now, my feelings on this in general are mixed. The standards should remain very high. If a female is going to serve in the infantry, she'd better be able to carry a fellow 220 lbs soldier to a medvac and be able to hump a 240G machine gun or the base plate or a 60 mm tube up that hill.

This. If I remember correctly a year ago there were two female infantry OCS candidates that washed out rather early on in the course. Correct me if I'm wrong on this though.

Also this will be a big logistics problem. I can't really say if this whole thing is a good or bad thing, I think time will ultimately tell how this plays out.

_________________

Napero wrote:

For the first time in 9 years, I have a brand new PC. This has 1277% more banning power than anything I've owned before.

"Whenever you dream you're holding the key, it opens the door to let you be free." - RJD

I don't understand why they even look at people based on gender. They should just look at people as people and if you meet the qualifications then it doesn't matter what your gender is.

Unfortunately simple reality means that the female body just isn't as well equipped in general to carry the weight an infantry soldier has to carry in modern warfare. A generalisation and there's certainly exceptions to the rule, but generally female injury rates at basic training, etc are higher than males. When soldiers are injured, the combat effectiveness of the unit suffers, more burden on the rest of the section/platoon/company, etc.

I don't understand why they even look at people based on gender. They should just look at people as people and if you meet the qualifications then it doesn't matter what your gender is.

Unfortunately simple reality means that the female body just isn't as well equipped in general to carry the weight an infantry soldier has to carry in modern warfare. A generalisation and there's certainly exceptions to the rule, but generally female injury rates at basic training, etc are higher than males. When soldiers are injured, the combat effectiveness of the unit suffers, more burden on the rest of the section/platoon/company, etc.

Also you have to shit in front of each other. That's always fun.

I'm just saying that if a woman can pass the test I see no reason for her to not be able to be in combat. I understand that it is harder for women, but still if they can do it, they should have the same opportunity.

As long as the women are able to perform the same physical tasks at the required level, then this is great news. This provides a substantial amount of opportunities for new soldiers and it could expand the military exponentially.

I think that's what's important. Women simply lack enough testosterone to build muscle as fast as men, but passing the exact standards as men should be enough for them to function every bit as well as their male counterparts.Another huge problem is the amount of rape in the American military, to say nothing of what happens to female P.O.W.s.

Lyudmila Mykhailivna Pavlichenko (Ukrainian: Людмила Михайлівна Павліченко; Russian: Людмила Михайловна Павличенко Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko; July 12, 1916 – October 10, 1974) was a Soviet sniper during World War II. Credited with 309 kills, she is regarded as the most successful female sniper in history.

All woman, all warrior!

_________________"I believe ghosts are like dogs and they just sort of do things arbitrarily."

Lyudmila Mykhailivna Pavlichenko (Ukrainian: Людмила Михайлівна Павліченко; Russian: Людмила Михайловна Павличенко Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko; July 12, 1916 – October 10, 1974) was a Soviet sniper during World War II. Credited with 309 kills, she is regarded as the most successful female sniper in history.

All woman, all warrior!

lancasterdrummer wrote:

As long as they are made to register for the draft at age 18 with the men, I fully support it.

That, and I also believe they should be made to cut their hair like the men do.

A bit more info on this topic. I viewed a 03xx (Infantry designation in the USMC) forum, and talked with some of the members there and with a few exceptions they all seem to be against this idea. Same things have been said in the Artillery, and Tank and Assault Amphibious Vehicle designations too. One of the main reasons that were stated was what marktheviktor said in his earlier post. I think that these MOSs should be the ones to really have a say in this, but that's just me.

One of the members, a grunt, said something that I found to be very interesting;

"The thing I'm getting tired of about this debate is that proponents supporting women in combat usually lose ground when physical ability is discussed, but then they try to say it's all about equal opportunity for their career.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again; "Last time I checked, the military exists to fight and win America's wars, not further anyone's career. I've looked into this, but if someone could find exactly where it says the military owes you a career, I would be much obliged. I believe the current contracts when you enlist state that the US government reserves the right to terminate your contract, at will, for any reason, at anytime. Doesn't matter if you have one day in, or 19 years and 364 days.

In my opinion the mindset of people believing that the military owes them a career is dangerous and creates an environment that stunts growth and directly jeopardizes the mission and the individual Marine."

_________________

Napero wrote:

For the first time in 9 years, I have a brand new PC. This has 1277% more banning power than anything I've owned before.

"Whenever you dream you're holding the key, it opens the door to let you be free." - RJD

"Last time I checked, the military exists to fight and win America's wars, not further anyone's career."...

"In my opinion the mindset of people believing that the military owes them a career is dangerous and creates an environment that stunts growth and directly jeopardizes the mission and the individual Marine."

The entire generalship really, really, really disagrees with you. They're all jobbers. They're all nepotized careerists, industrial shills and vain jocks too (which is why they insist on continuing to use manned airplanes in combat, drones aren't sexy and career building enough).

Anyway, women have all the psychological capacity to be great warriors, which is all it takes. Even in trench hopping wars, and we don't even fight trench hopping wars anymore.

_________________"I believe ghosts are like dogs and they just sort of do things arbitrarily."

Well of course, I don't think that he meant that you can't build a career out of it. I think that he meant you shouldn't be joining a military branch and expect that it owes you a career or some advancement. You join to win wars, right?

_________________

Napero wrote:

For the first time in 9 years, I have a brand new PC. This has 1277% more banning power than anything I've owned before.

"Whenever you dream you're holding the key, it opens the door to let you be free." - RJD

Sure, if your joining with some romantisized view of being a soilder. The main reason for joining should be to defend, defend your countrie, your citizens and any other countrie or citizens happens to be our closest allies at the moment. You join to keep your home and people safe.

Well, you'd be surprised how many people join for the sole purpose of deploying to a combat zone. And to give you a hint, that number is high. Delusional or not, people have their reasons.

Edit to answer Aurone.

Aurone wrote:

Sure, if your joining with some romantisized view of being a soilder. The main reason for joining should be to defend, defend your countrie, your citizens and any other countrie or citizens happens to be our closest allies at the moment. You join to keep your home and people safe.

Correct, it shouldn't be for career advancements. I don't mean to backtrack, but to me winning wars is defending your country. That's just me though.

_________________

Napero wrote:

For the first time in 9 years, I have a brand new PC. This has 1277% more banning power than anything I've owned before.

"Whenever you dream you're holding the key, it opens the door to let you be free." - RJD

I'm pretty convinced the vast majority of the military not only in the US consists of people who got nothing better to do. Then there's people who joined because they thought being a soldier is an awesome job. Idealists should be the minority.

I'm pretty convinced the vast majority of the military not only in the US consists of people who got nothing better to do. Then there's people who joined because they thought being a soldier is an awesome job. Idealists should be the minority.

In truth, most of the support-side MOS' (the vast majority of the military n general) enlisted for college / bonus money. A lot of enlisted are <21 years old and don't care about a deployment until maybe 3 years into their national guard or reserve time. I for one didn't care until that point, but now I'm reaching my 6 years and I'm passed giving a crap. Anyone who damn well enlists to deploy and to serve their country is more than likely to enlist in the combat roles and / or active duty. There is a choice in regard to your MOS. I can't speak for the USMC or others, just army.

_________________

gomorro wrote:

Yesterday was the birthday of school pal and I met the chick of my sigh (I've talked about here before, the she-wolf I use to be inlove with)... Maaan she was using a mini-skirt too damn insane... Dude you could saw her entire soul every time she sit...

Sure, if your joining with some romantisized view of being a soilder. The main reason for joining should be to defend, defend your countrie, your citizens and any other countrie or citizens happens to be our closest allies at the moment. You join to keep your home and people safe.

Countrie? C'mon!

_________________'Sometimes you have to be a bigot in order to beat bigger bigots' - G. Marenghi.

I'm pretty convinced the vast majority of the military not only in the US consists of people who got nothing better to do. Then there's people who joined because they thought being a soldier is an awesome job. Idealists should be the minority.

In truth, most of the support-side MOS' (the vast majority of the military n general) enlisted for college / bonus money. A lot of enlisted are <21 years old and don't care about a deployment until maybe 3 years into their national guard or reserve time. I for one didn't care until that point, but now I'm reaching my 6 years and I'm passed giving a crap. Anyone who damn well enlists to deploy and to serve their country is more than likely to enlist in the combat roles and / or active duty. There is a choice in regard to your MOS. I can't speak for the USMC or others, just army.

I've been in the Infantry for over 5 years now (both active and Guard), and I can say that everyone I know in this field joined to fight, not so much for the college money.

Also, I personally am ok with women being allowed into the combat arms, however there is alot of fear that the standards will drop as a result. For example, I am light (Airborne) Infantry, so I essentially carry my home on my back. Often times my equipment loadout will weigh upwards of 50 pounds plus the 70-100 pound rucksack on my back that I could carry for 12 miles or more and still be combat effective at the end. All while being out in "the field" for anywhere from 3-10 days without a refit and minimal sleep. That is just carrying necessary gear, nothing superfluous. And what if she has to carry the 240? That's a medium machine gun that weigh's ~30 pounds. The weight adds up. The concern many Infantryman have is can women handle that physically? And if they can't, what's going to happen to that unit's combat effectiveness if members can't even carry a basic load? Will the Army decrease the standards and training in order to integrate more women just so the officials can pat themselves on their backs while doing those men and women a huge disservice? Like I said, I am fine with women in the combat arms, but I think it would be a big mistake to change what is already expected because what is expected is very basic compared to actual combat (personal experience).

In truth, most of the support-side MOS' (the vast majority of the military n general) enlisted for college / bonus money. A lot of enlisted are <21 years old and don't care about a deployment until maybe 3 years into their national guard or reserve time. I for one didn't care until that point, but now I'm reaching my 6 years and I'm passed giving a crap. Anyone who damn well enlists to deploy and to serve their country is more than likely to enlist in the combat roles and / or active duty. There is a choice in regard to your MOS. I can't speak for the USMC or others, just army.

I've been in the Infantry for over 5 years now (both active and Guard), and I can say that everyone I know in this field joined to fight, not so much for the college money.

Hence why I said support-side MOS' AR / NG.

_________________

gomorro wrote:

Yesterday was the birthday of school pal and I met the chick of my sigh (I've talked about here before, the she-wolf I use to be inlove with)... Maaan she was using a mini-skirt too damn insane... Dude you could saw her entire soul every time she sit...